Science is Important. So Why Aren’t Candidates Talking About It?

October 5, 2016

Aside from Hillary Clinton’s brief mentions of the need to focus on developing technology and clean energy jobs and addressing climate change, science issues were absent from the first presidential debate.

Unfortunately, this is indicative of how things have gone throughout the 2016 campaign. Amid all the talk from our leading presidential candidates about how crucial this election is to our nation’s future, science education and research funding—issues directly tied to our economic standing in the world and to national security—have received scant attention from either of the two major candidates.

Researchers make life-changing discoveries daily. A Boston University engineer is developing a wearable bionic pancreas that could help millions of people with type 1 diabetes (thanks to National Institutes of Health support). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration researchers are figuring out how quickly the sun converts oil and gas facility emissions to ozone pollution that harms human health. A collaborative group of scientists, including those here at the University of Kansas-based Center for Remote Sensing of the Ice Sheets, discovered a vast ice sheet in Greenland was melting faster than believed, with implications for global sea level rise for decades to come.

These are successes—and there are thousands more to point to in fields ranging from biotech to medical research to clean energy. Without such advancement, we risk stagnation in all these areas, threatening our nation’s well-being and our international standing, while eroding our role as global leaders in innovation. But recent low levels of federal funding impede the pace of scientific discovery.

As chancellor of a public research university, my hope is that by Election Day the candidates will give us substantive plans that would prioritize science and the contributions it can make toward helping the United States stay on top.

Prioritizing science means funding it

Despite its crucial role in driving economic growth, research and development in the STEM fields accounts for only a small portion of the federal budget—currently less than 4 percent. That’s down from nearly 12 percent in 1965, during the height of the Space Race.

This type of aggressive and sustained growth in research funding provides a second benefit: It sends a signal that the U.S. is serious about holding on to its status as a leader in scientific and engineering innovation. More funding lays the groundwork for long-term stability in the field, especially as the next generation of scientists and engineers make their career-path choices.

Increasing investment and strengthening our pipeline of future scientists and engineers won’t matter, however, if we don’t translate their work into products and services that improve lives. Our next president should prioritize interdisciplinary research and connecting university research with the marketplace in a way that creates new products, technologies and services.

Future scientists must be trained

Uncertain funding opportunities discourage potential scientists and academic researchers—people think twice about signing on to careers that demand decades of training with no guarantee the necessary resources for conducting research will be waiting at the finish line. Adequate and sustained investment in research would address this problem. But another factor has played a major role in the research innovation gap we face: the inadequacy of our basic science and math education.

Industry already feels the repercussions of this underinvestment in science and engineering. American manufacturers have voiced concern about a skills gap in the coming decade. They expect to have 3.5 million jobs to fill, but estimates suggest only about 1.5 million workers are prepared to step in for example with electrical and mechanical technical skills to maintain complex machines for production.

Eliminate inefficient regulation

Federal support for research is key. But there are also some obstacles posed by current federal regulations. The next president’s leadership could help clear away some of these well-intentioned but burdensome regulations that can hinder or undercut R&D efforts.

We need to ensure that the most talented foreign-born, U.S.-educated individuals, especially in STEM fields, have the opportunity to become American citizens and contribute to our economy. In addition, with all the talk in this campaign about immigration policy, the candidates should expand their platforms to phase out the 7 percent cap per country that limits employment-based green cards. I’d argue to replace it with a first-come, first-served system for qualified highly skilled immigrants.

Gearing up for a new golden age of research

Trump and Clinton said little about science and engineering research in their first debate. But science and engineering issues are vital to our prosperity, our well-being, our status as a global leader, and our national security. My hope is that in the final weeks of the campaign, voters and media can somehow force the candidates to address these crucial issues—and in essence, determine whether we can avoid the “gathering storm.”